Systemic Risk and Climate Change

Systemic Risk and Climate Change

What if the claimed consensus is wrong?

Clive Menzies

On behalf of Critical Thinking at the Free University, London

Abstract

Purpose: Challenging outdated and erroneous assumptions that underpin the low carbon agenda
to highlight systemic or macro risks arising from a misunderstanding of climate change.
Design/methodology/approach: This paper is the product of non-hierarchical, self-organised, co-
creative learning.

Findings: Contrary to popular perception, there is no scientific consensus on C02 driving climate
change and we are in a period of negative discovery - the more we learn about climate, the less we
can attribute the recent warming to C02; many studies point to the dominance of natural cycles
and, since 2010, cumulative studies indicate imminent cooling which is, potentially, a more serious
threat than global warming. In short, the science is not settled.

Research limitations/implications: Misperceptions of climate change are giving rise to systemic
or macro risks through misallocation of resources.

Practical implications: Should temperatures plummet significantly, as they have many times in the
past, the low carbon economy will be exposed as seriously deficient and vulnerable. Increased
frequency and severity of storms will raise insurance and other costs.

Social implications: Food and energy shortages are likely to be a product of significant global
cooling and may be exacerbated by adoption of low carbon policies and investments.
Originality/value: The IPCC was specifically established and funded to assess human-induced
climate change and its impacts. Other academic institutions are incentivised through funding and
elevated status to support the illusory consensus on climate change. This paper is an unfunded and
impartial challenge to orthodox thinking on climate change from a risk management perspective.

Keywords: global warming; climate change; consensus, IPCC; Assessment Report; Summary for
Policy Makers; SPM; low carbon economy; CO 2 ; global cooling; impacts; extreme weather; energy;
political economy; macro risk; systemic risk; groupthink; co-creative learning;

1. What consensus?

Do the majority of climate scientists support the alleged consensus on man-made global warming?
(referred to in the literature as anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and sometimes referred to as
catastrophic, ie. CAGW - See Section 6).

Following the publication, in 2007, of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), it was stated in
media reports that the IPCC’s claim of human influence on climate was supported by almost 4,000
authors and reviewers; the IPCC’s publicity flyer for AR4 referred to 2,500+ reviewers and 1,250+
authors. John McLean analysed the AR4 papers to determine how many scientists and authors
supported this statement and discovered only 60 explicitly supported the claim. 1

1 The IPCC can't count its "expert scientists":- Author and reviewer numbers are wrong by John McLean

http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC numbers.pdf

2. Suppression of evidence

A paradox persists in the global warming/climate change debate. Those who support the claimed
consensus enjoy funding and opportunities to promote their work, whereas those who challenge the
authorised narrative are attacked and vilified while their credibility is called into question. Professor
Richard Lindzen of MIT said in a 2007 article: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen
their grant funds disappear, their work derided. ” 2 There are considerable financial and reputational
costs to dissent.

Hal Lewis resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) in a letter detailing his reasons, sent
by email and dated 8 th October 2010. Lewis’s letter was replicated on the UK Telegraph
newspaper’s website on 9 th October 2010 but has been subsequently removed. The
WayBackMachine i) shows that Lewis’s letter was removed; and ii) allows us to access the letter as
published by the Telegraph. 3

There are many examples of information or evidence being removed, edited or suppressed to
obfuscate or hide dissent among climate scientists and evidence that undermines or invalidates the
AGW theory:

166 climate scientists issued a challenge to former UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, on the eve
of the Copenhagen Climate Summit in 2009, to provide proof of human induced global warming,
saying that we are in a period of negative discovery, ie. the more we learn, the less convincing is the
argument for anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming. 4 (page removed but available on the
WayBackMachine)

700 scientists have made submissions to the US Senate expressing dissent from the consensus. 5
(page removed but available on the WayBackMachine)

Wikipedia is useful when looking for uncontroversial information but it is not an impartial source of
information on climate nor on many other controversial issues or events. In December 2009,
following the Climategate revelations (See Section 8) and coinciding with UN Copenhagen Summit
on Climate Change, Canadian investigative journalist, Lawrence Solomon, reported how William
Connolly was found to have removed or edited 5428 Wikipedia entries relating to climate.

Solomon's original article first disappeared from the National Post website and later from the
WayBackMachine; it is replicated elsewhere 6

The BBC's reporting on climate change has been stridently partisan, in spite of the prevailing
uncertainty and dispute among scientists over man-made C0 2 's culpability. A secret BBC meeting in
2006, convened by global warming activists, led to the blanket suppression of evidence and
information which contradicted the man-made global warming hypothesis. A six-year freedom of
information battle, by a private citizen, to get the BBC to disclose who attended the meeting was
subject to legal action. 7

2 Climate of Fear: Global Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence By Prof. Richard Lindzen
https://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-of-fear-global-warming-alarmists-intimidate-dissenting-scientists-into-

silence/5294

3 https://web.archive.Org/web/20160608114416/http://mv.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/reasonmclucus/15835660/pr

ofessor-emiritus-hal-lewis-resigns-from-american-physical-society/

4 https://web.archive.Org/web/20120502140009/http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

5 https://web.archive.Org/web/20091202014754/http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?

FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

6 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-

wikipedia-climate-information/

7 Who were the SECRET 28 who ended all climate debate at the BBC?
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/boaden tribunal information refusal/

3. The IPCC is not an impartial referee of climate science

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was specifically established to assess
human-induced climate change; this mission statement or definition of “role” has been subsequently
watered down but the original 8 clearly states this. The IPCC’s raison d’etre is inextricably
dependent on a causal link between CO 2 and global warming. Consequently, neither the IPCC nor
any of those who benefit from association with it, either financially or reputationally, can be
regarded as impartial in their assessment of the causes of climate change. Without a causal link,
neither they nor the IPCC would benefit; the stakes, both reputationally and financially, as Hal
Lewis suggests in his letter referred to in Section 2, are very high.

A later, 2008, version of the IPCC’s “About” website page is no longer available but as statistician
Steve McIntyre reported at the time 9 , there was this inclusion/addition of: Its role is to assess on a
comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio¬
economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-
induced climate change.

The rationale for this assessment of the literature was/is to provide policy makers and others with an
overview or synthesis of the available information in order that appropriate actions or steps can be
taken to mitigate the potential threats or risks arising from man-made global warming.

In the body of the IPCC’s assessment reports, such as AR5 released in 2014, are the scientific
papers which represent the accumulated knowledge of the climate system at that time but most
people (particularly politicians and journalists) don't have the time, expertise or inclination to digest
all the papers for themselves, so they rely on the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM).

The SPM is a crucial document which acts as the transmission mechanism to turn dense academic
papers on climate science and impacts into government policies. It is also relied on by many as the
definitive authority on climate science but in this regard it fails to reflect reality - the AGW case is
at best uncertain; the balance of probability is that natural cycles dominate climate.

The SPM is drawn up, not by scientists representing the academic papers underpinning each
assessment report but by a narrow coterie of climate scientists and some 195 government
delegations which "negotiate" the final text. Negotiate is the operative word because huge wealth
transfers between countries are potentially involved and those anxious to benefit have to ensure the
AGW theory is sustained. Most of the delegates are incentivised to maximise the alarm not just
through financial inducements but because their status and credibility are staked on perpetuating it.
As long as this self-interested groupthink prevails, growing numbers of people and organisations
not only “buy into the narrative” but become “invested” in the resulting “green” agenda. This has
created its own momentum which adds to the power of the narrative.

Two leading IPCC authors 10 have written letters explaining why they've distanced themselves from
the SPM to expose how many statements made by scientists in the original draft are removed,
ensuring that any doubts or evidence which undermines the AGW theory are suppressed.

After all the caveats, doubts and contradictory evidence are removed from the SPM, one is left with
the inescapable conclusion that man is causing global warming, irrespective that this conclusion is
not supported by the accumulated evidence contained in the Assessment Report.

8 PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK

https://web.archive.Org/web/20071215224550/http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principales/ipcc-principales.pdf

9 Role of the IPCC https://climateaudit.org/2008/01/08/role-of-the-ipcc/

10 Stavins and Tol on IPCC WG3 https://iudithcurrv.com/2014/04/26/stavins-and-tol-on-ipcc-wg3/

For a more in-depth critique of the IPCC, see Donna Laframboise’s book, The Delinquent Teenager
Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert 11

4. The Stern Review

The Stern Review 12 was published on 30 th October 2006, three years before the revelation that
climate science is in a state of “negative discovery” referred to by the 166 scientists who challenged
UN Secretary Ban Ki Moon (See Section 2), on the eve of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit,
ie. the more we learn about climate, the less we can attribute the cause of global warming to CO 2 .

The Stern Report called for immediate action to curb CO 2 emissions and set the agenda for the UK’s
climate change planning and policy which remains unchanged 12 years later, ie. policy, planning
and risk assessment continue in ignorance of the flawed premise to justify the low carbon economy.

A pause for thought and re-examination of the underlying premise of the low carbon economy is
essential before we continue along the current trajectory with potentially disastrous consequences
from a risk management perspective.

5. Perception of climate change risks

The recent discussion paper, Climate Change and Green Finance 13 , issued by the UK’s Financial
Conduct Authority (FCA) refers to physical risks as a result of climate change and market risks
arising from moving to a low carbon economy and very much reflects the conclusions of the Stern
Review (See Section 4)

The tacit assumption in the FCA’s discussion paper is that the AGW theory is proven and that we
should only consider the risk of global warming. The uncertainty of continued warming, evidenced
by numerous climate studies (see Section 10) and satellite temperature data (see Fig. 3) means we
ought to similarly assess what risks arise from global cooling.

Furthermore, if CO 2 is not the culprit, ie. man-made emissions are not the cause of the recent
warming, we need to consider the physical, economic and financial risks which may arise from
moving to a low carbon economy.

Physical risks with economic and financial consequences, commonly attributed to global warming
are: extreme weather events (resulting in droughts, fires or floods), desertification (leading to lower
food production capacity) and rising sea levels inundating populated regions or islands - there are
many other effects claimed to be caused by warmer global temperatures but these few are most
significant from a risk management perspective.

These risks are often adduced as additional evidence of man-made global warming.

5.1 Extreme weather events (resulting in droughts, fires or floods) - In 2005, a leading hurricane
specialist, Chris Landsea, resigned from the IPCC in protest over repeated, unsubstantiated claims
of man’s CO 2 emissions causing extreme weather 14 . His 2007 study 15 , of hurricanes over the last 100
years, found no causal link or correlation between climate change and the frequency or intensity of
hurricanes. A more recent study 16 from the Institute for Environmental Studies, Amsterdam, found
no correlation between climate change and extreme weather. It concluded rising insurance losses

11 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12908271-the-delinquent-teenager-who-was-mistaken-for-the-world-s-top-

climate-exp

12 http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/the-economics-of-climate-change-the-stern-review/

13 https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/discussion/dpl8-08.pdf

14 Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC http://landscapesandcycles.net/chris-landsea-resigns-from-ipcc.html

15 https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea-eos-mav012007.pdf

were due to expanding populations in vulnerable areas. The 2012 IPCC SREX 17 (extreme weather)
report found no correlation between extreme weather and global warming.

5.2 Desertification - a number of studies counter the claim that increased CO 2 is detrimental to
vegetation and consequently prejudicial to agriculture and food production:

Study: increased carbon dioxide is greening deserts globally 18

700,000 Square Kilometers Of Added Green Vegetation, Climate Change Shrinks Sahara Desert By
Whopping 8%! 19

Deserts 'greening' from rising CO 220

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds 21

5.3 Rising sea levels - in the same way that there is no scientific consensus on climate change,
there is disagreement on likely trends in sea levels. First, to talk of “global” sea level is misleading
because sea levels are affected by many factors other than climate such as localised vertical land
movement. 22 Further, the margin of error in measuring sea level is far greater than the values used to
project future trends. 23 The Maldives are often referred to as being under threat from climate change
and yet, in spite of dire predictions 30 years ago, the Maldives and other coral islands may actually
be expanding. 24

Climatic drivers of sea levels are thermal expansion of the oceans and ice melt on land (glaciers and
Antarctic ice 25 primarily - Arctic ice floats and displaces its equivalent weight of water, thus having
no appreciable effect on sea level); there are studies that refute the claims that ice melt is currently
exceptional, ie. glaciers and Antarctic ice remain within the boundaries of historic variability.
Furthermore, some studies reveal evidence ice growth in relation to both, thus adding weight to the
claims of a cooling climate 26 .

In summary, there seems to be little or no physical risk, of financial significance, arising from a
warmer climate which, in any event, seems not to be in danger of breeching historical levels of
warmth experienced during the Medieval and Roman warm periods (see Section 7). In fact,
compared to the Tittle Ice Age (see Section 11), current temperatures are beneficial.

16 Have Disaster Losses Increased Due to Anthropogenic Climate Change? Laurens M. Bouwer
https://iournals.ametsoc.Org/doi/10.1175/2010BAMS3092.l

17 A Handy Bullshit Button on Disasters and Climate Change http ://ro gerpielkejr.blo gspot. com/2012/03/handv-
bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html

18 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/16/studv-increased-carbon-dioxide-is-greening-deserts-globallv/

19 https://notrickszone.com/2019/01/16/700000-square-kilometers-of-added-green-vegetation-climate-change-shrinks-

sahara-desert-bv-whopping-8/

20 https://phvs.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html

21 https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/

22 SEA LEVEL: Rise and Fall - Part 3 - Computational Hubris https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/19/sea-level-rise-
and-fall-part-3-computational-hubris/

23 Sea Level Rise: Climate Change and an Ocean of Natural Variability https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/2Q/sea-
level-rise-climate-change-and-an-ocean-of-natural-variabilitv/#more-94152

24 30 Years Ago Officials Predicted The Maldives Would Be Swallowed By The Sea. It Didn’t Happen
https://dailvcaller.com/2018/09/21/maldives-global-warming-sea-level/

25 https://www.iceagenow.com/List of Expanding Glaciers.htm

26 https://web.archive.Org/web/20190228024211/https://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/3065852/researchers-raise-doubts-

about-scientific-paper-claiming-rising-ocean-temperature

6. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW)

The UK Met Office diagram (Fig. 1) and accompanying explanation below are no longer available
on the Met Office website which, despite now giving some credence to solar influences, still asserts
that CO 2 is the primary driver of climate change. 27

In 2010, the UK Met Office described the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis as
follows: “It is now clear that man-made greenhouse gases are causing climate change. The rate of
change began as significant, has become alarming and is simply unsustainable in the long term.”
The greenhouse effect was depicted on their website thus:

Fig. 1 From the UK Met Office website and information leaflet delivered to UK households in 2010

Solar rays hit the earth and heat up the surface (as shown on the left of Fig. 1). The earth’s surface
emits infrared radiation back into space thereby cooling the planet (depicted by two of the red
arrows in the right hand picture). Greenhouse gases in the troposphere trap some of the infrared rays
reflecting heat back down to the surface. The AGW theory claims that increased CO 2 concentrations
in the atmosphere, caused by humans, is trapping more infrared energy thereby raising global
temperatures.

For the theory to hold true, the observable rate of temperature increase would be higher in the
troposphere than at the earth’s surface. The rate of temperature increase would be most noticeable in
the tropics because that is where the surface would be radiating the most heat.

Yet observations, from radiosonde (weather balloons) and satellite data have consistently shown
that not to be the case:

27 Why is our climate changing? https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/climate-change/whv

The computer models predict Actual balloon measurements show
most warming occurs at the mid no warming in the mid troposphere at
troposphere at the Equator the Equator The models are wrong

Total Linear Change Over 1958 1090 (*C) Linear trend ('Cldaeada)

Fig. 2 Images from The Missing Hotspot - Dr David Evans

The left hand picture in Fig. 2 is the climate model prediction of warming in the mid troposphere
due to greenhouse gases from 1958 to 1999. The computer models predict most warming occurs at
the mid troposphere at the Equator. The right hand picture shows actual temperatures measured over
the same period by radiosonde (weather balloon). Actual balloon measurements show no increase in
the rate of warming in the mid troposphere at the Equator, ie. no evidence of hot-spots in the
troposphere; it is notable that none of the scientific papers supporting the AGW theory have
claimed to have found such evidence. 28

In short, the AGW theory is not supported by the evidence. Had the AGW hypothesis been subject
to the proper scientific method, the failure to substantiate this fundamental premise (of increased
warming in the troposphere over the Equator) would have rendered the man-made global warming
theory invalid.

7. Measuring global temperature

There are two types of temperature record, those directly recorded in real time and those which are
recreated using a variety of techniques (often referred to as proxy records) to try to understand
changes in temperature long before recorded temperatures were available.

It is important to understand that there is no such thing as a global temperature. What is referred to,
when talking about climate change, is an approximation of global temperatures derived from a
limited number of data sets. There is no definitive, long term record of global temperatures. Surface
temperature records go back to about 1850 but early records are restricted to a small number of
locations mainly in the northern hemisphere. Later records are affected by the Urban Heat Island
(UHI) effect: temperature recording instruments, once sited in remote locations, are now surrounded
by urban environments. UHI exaggerates the perceived warming. Where records are missing,
they’ve been estimated. Anthony Watts, a retired meteorologist, has undertaken extensive research
into surface temperature data 29 .

28 http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf

29 https://wattsupwiththat.com/global-temperature/

oiOrHp<jrf)<^-LniorvooCT)OrH(Nro>^Lfuor^oooiOtHpvir(i'a-Lnvor^oooiOrHPsim>^-Lniorvooai

rNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO^O^ffiO^O^OlOIOt^OlOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHrlrt

oioimjioimmmmfflmmmmmmmmmmmoooooooooooooooooooo

TH»HTHTHiHTH>H»-lrHTHTHTH»-H>HrH»HTHTHrHrHT-lpg»MPgpvlfMPM(NPMPslP>HMfM(SfMPvlfMPvllM(NIN

Fig. 3 Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures

Satellite data are probably the most reliable guide to global temperature that we have but only since
1979. They do, however, give us a clear view month by month as to where we stand. Satellite
temperature data (see Fig. 3) show no evidence of the predicted runaway warming. 30

If we look back at the recorded surface temperature records they show a secular rise since the end of
the Little Ice Age (c.1850) but with periods of warming and cooling. From about 1910 to 1940 there
was a warming trend similar to what we saw from around 1975 to 2000. In between there was a
cooling phase from about 1940 and this was in spite of rising CO 2 emissions in the post war
industrial boom.

If we want to go back much further than 150 years to understand how today's temperatures compare
with say 1000 years ago, we need to rely on anecdotal evidence and proxy temperature
reconstructions.

The first IPCC Assessment Report in 1991 contained the HH Lamb graph (see Fig. 4) of
temperatures over the last 1,000 years which accords with our understanding of the Medieval Warm
Period (MWP) and the subsequent Little Ice Age (LIA) and for which there is ample anecdotal and
archaeological evidence: the Vikings settled and farmed in Greenland from about 980 to 1400AD
over the MWP; the settlements collapsed with the onset of the LIA; burial sites have been found in
the permafrost; Pepys wrote of the Great Frost Fair of 1683 and skating on the Thames when the
river and surrounding estuary froze for weeks over winter. That temperatures have been rising since
end of the LIA (c.1820) is neither surprising nor alarming.

30 http://www.drrovspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Year

Fig. 4 HH Lamb graph of 1000 years of global temperature used for the first IPCC assessment report in 1991

8. Climategate

o

Cl

E

0)

c

(O

3

•c

(0

CL

<D

Q

Year

Fig. 5 The hockey stick graph as it appeared in the IPCC Third Assessment Report WG1 (2001) summary, Figure 2.20,

Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction.

For the Third Assessment Report in 2001, the IPCC published the Hockey Stick graph (see Fig. 5)
based on proxy data. This was produced in a paper (MBH98) by Michael Mann and others,
claiming that the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium. A retired geologist and
mathematician, Steve McIntyre, together with Ross McKitrick, an economics professor and

statistician, set out to replicate Mann’s work but found statistical errors and manipulation of data
had produced the hockey stick. 31 Subsequently, the Wegman Committee 32 , appointed by the US
Senate to adjudicate on the hockey stick, found in favour of McIntyre and McKitrick to confirm the
flaws and repudiate the claim that the 1990s was the hottest decade of the last 1,000 years. A 2011
paper by McShane and Wyner 33 , two statisticians, demonstrates why the original and subsequent
versions of the hockey stick are flawed and not a reliable guide to global temperatures.

No evidence suggests recent temperatures are unprecedented; on the contrary, there is circumstantial
evidence that temperatures have been higher in the past and possibly as recently as the 1940s.

In the autumn of 2009, in advance of the UN Copenhagen Climate Summit, leaked documents and
emails 34 from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) exposed collusion and
manipulation of data to produce hockey stick graphs. Michael Mann and Phil Jones, the head of
CRU, resisted requests from other scientists for data, methodologies and programs, in direct
contravention of the scientific method. Former cabinet secretary. Lord Turnbull 35 , described the
three UK inquiries, into what became known as Climategate, as “hasty and superficial.” He has
called for “a full review of the science itself.” Ross Mcltrick described the inadequacy of the (total
of) five inquiries in a detailed critique. 36

9. What drives climate change?

Willie Soon’s climate change research 37 shows that Arctic surface temperatures correlate with solar
activity rather than CO 2 and suggests that the sun is the dominant driver of climate change.

Solar magnetism and galactic cosmic rays 38 appear to have a significant influence on albedo
(reflective cloud cover) which has a cooling effect.

Solar influences 39 appear to interact with other cyclical phenomena such as the El-Nino Southern
Oscillation which produces a warming pulse of varying intensity every 4-5 years. The Pacific
Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has a 30 year cycle. The PDO’s reversal from positive to negative in
2007 depressed temperatures worldwide and may herald a negative cycle, leading some climate
specialists to predict cooling.

The Arctic Oscillation peaks every 60 to 70 years. It may have caused the warm spike in the 1940s
as well as the recent warming. Sometimes, these oscillations cancel each other out and at other
times they work in harmony.

31 The M&M Project: Replication Analysis of the Mann et al. Hockey Stick
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

32 AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION2
https://web.archive.Org/web/20100612073030/http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006

Wegman Report.pdf

33 https://proiecteuclid.org/download/pclfview l/euclid.aoas/1300715170

34 THE CLIMATEGATE EMAILS http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-
change/climategate-emails.pdf

35 Former Civil Service chief calls for climate shakeup
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/14/lord turnbull interview/

36 Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.eom/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck climategate.pdf

37 Willie Wei-Hock Soon https://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon

38 Cosmic rays and climate http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/

39 SOLAR CYCLE 24: EXPECTATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Archibald2009E&E.pdf

What becomes evident, when reviewing the depth and breadth of climate science, is that we’re in a
period of negative discovery: the more we learn, the less attribution to CO 2 is justifiable. We don’t
understand how the various cycles and many variables interact.

In short, the science is by no means settled and we are incapable of making accurate predictions
of climate change. We are certainly not capable of controlling it.

10. Is Earth’s climate in a cooling phase?

As long ago as 2010, the cumulative body of evidence from the broad climate science community
suggested that we could be heading into a period of cooling, possibly analogous to the Little Ice
Age.

Peter Taylor, author of Chill: A reassessment of Global Warming 40 , gave a talk at the Energy
Institute in London on 16th February 2010. In the talk, he explained that having spent three years
talking to a wide variety of climate scientists and reviewing the academic literature, he had come to
the conclusion that CO 2 , if it played a role in global warming, was relatively insignificant compared
to the dominance of natural cycles and particularly solar influences. He pointed to cumulative
evidence of a “quieter sun”, analogous to the conditions which prevailed during the Dalton and
Maunder minima, ie. the Little Ice Age.

More evidence of this anticipated cooling has been accumulating since the release of Taylor’s book.
Chill, which was strongly endorsed by W Jackson Davis, author of the first draft of the Kyoto
Protocol.

Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology, Western Washington State University,
delivered his testimony to the Washington State Senate - Energy, Environment &
Telecommunications Committee, on March 26, 2013. 41 Easterbrook’s work explores oceanic cycles
which reinforce the notion that we are currently in a cooling phase.

Professor Valentina Zharkova has developed the Climate and the Solar Magnetic Field hypothesis;
the historical correlation between solar magnetic variations and global temperatures suggests an
imminent grand minimum which means the planet is about to get much colder. 42

Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” - “enjoy global warming while
it lasts ” 43

and recently from NASA:

NASA Sees Climate Cooling Trend Thanks to Low Sun Activity 44

In summary, cumulative evidence suggests a significantly higher probability of cooling than
warming.

40 https://www.outersite.org/chill-a-reassessment-of-global-warming-theorv/

41 Global Warming Testimony to Washington State Committee 3 -26-2013 https://youtu.be/8BKBzc8vJtO

42 Solar Magnetic Field Oscillations Confirm Global Cooling is Upon Us
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/solar-magnetic-field-oscillations-confirm-global-

cooling-is-upon-us/

43 https://principia-scientific.org/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-eniov-global-

warming-while-it-lasts/

44 https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/30214-nasa-sees-climate-cooling-trend-thanks-to-low-

sun-activitv

11. Systemic risks arising from the reality of climate change

We’ve not experienced the catastrophes which have been predicted for the last few decades and
satellite data confirm runaway warming is not happening (see Fig. 3).

If predictions of cooling are correct, what risks do we face and are we exacerbating those risks by
pursing the goal of a low carbon economy ?

More and more businesses and institutions are investing in the “green” agenda or aligning their
organisations and operations to comply with laws and regulations which drive the low carbon
economy. When perception catches up with reality, these organisations will suffer a similar
"emperor's new clothes" moment to that which brought down the sup-prime mortgage market (See
Section 12). Already, those who invested in some renewal energy schemes based on government
subsidies have seen returns reduce or collapse when those subsidies are removed. Last year, it was
reported that Germany’s wind energy programme is in trouble. 45 This is just one example of macro
or systemic risk arising from the low carbon economy agenda; there are undoubtedly more.

Furthermore, the low carbon agenda risks exacerbating the physical risks associated with global
cooling.

While the probability of another Little Ice Age may be low, its effects would be devastating.

HH Lamb, who introduced the long term temperature graph (Fig.4) into the 1991IPCC Assessment
Report, described the great storms of the Little Ice Age. His book, CLIMATE, HISTORY AND
THE MODERN WORLD 46 provides a long term perspective on climate which can help inform our
view of climate and the risks that changes bring.

Lamb refers to 5°C drop in North Atlantic surface temperature, around 1700, increasing the thermal
gradient which may account for the greater severity of storms at that time than today. He cites many
coastal disasters from sea floods during the Little Ice Age, in spite of slightly lower sea levels,
leading to loss of life. He also describes islands being demolished and how a 4000 year old
settlement site in the Hebrides was overwhelmed with sand in 1697. He relates the extent of the
damage arising from a storm in 1703 including how the Eddystone lighthouse near Plymouth was
blown down. Houses across the country were damaged and in London estimates of the cost were
around £2million. There were also numerous ships wrecked and up to 8000 lives lost. 47

Clearly from an insurance perspective, adverse weather events during prolonged periods of lower
temperatures are a significant risk, as would be crop failure and many other accompanying
phenomena. A low carbon economy is far more vulnerable to extreme cold, a situation in which
we’ll need to access all the energy sources we can find and develop safely.

The objective of this paper is not to prove that we’re heading into a Little Ice Age but to suggest
that our perception of climate risk is misaligned with reality. The reality being that climate seems to
be driven by natural cycles rather than CO 2 emissions and that we are in danger of exacerbating the
implicit risks in cooling by focusing on CO 2 as the main driver of global warming. Renewable

45 Germany’s Wind Energy Mess: As Subsidies Expire, Thousands Of Turbines To Shut Down.. .Environmental
Nightmare! https://notrickszone.com/2018/04/24/germanvs-wind-energv-mess-as-subsidies-expire-thousands-of-
turbines-to-shut-down-environmental-nightmare/

46 CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/158379.Climate History and the Modern World

47 HH Lamb & The Great Storms Of The Little Ice Age
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/ll/16/hh-lamb-the-great-storms-of-the-little-ice-age/

energy will not be sufficient to fulfil our energy needs in a colder climate. Both our energy and food
systems lack essential resilience to withstand prolonged periods of significantly lower temperatures.
In addition, from an economic/financial macro risk perspective, history suggests extreme weather
events are more likely and give rise to more devastating impacts during prolonged periods of cold.

In a recent debate on climate change 48 , former IPCC author, Judith Curry 49 , suggested we adopt a
“no-regrets” policy that incorporates resilience in the face of either warmer or cooler temperatures.

If financial institutions rely solely on outdated, flawed perceptions of climate change as justification
to pursue the low carbon agenda, prescribed by the FCA and other institutions, they are in the same
position as those who, in the sub-prime mortgage market, relied on the credit ratings agencies which
were incentivised to grant AAA ratings to toxic securities (see Section 12): financial institutions are
abdicating their responsibility for due diligence to untrustworthy third parties.

12. Institutional blindness

Government, regulatory, economic and financial institutions have taken the IPCC Summary for
Policy Makers at face value without conducting their own, independent assessment of the current,
accumulated knowledge of climate and are unaware of the lack of consensus. Individuals within
these institutions may be aware or suspect that they are being misled by media and academia but
reward structures dissuade them from speaking out because, as in the climate science community,
dissent from the “consensus” comes at a price in terms of career prospects and social acceptance.

This problem of institutional blindness is not unique to the issue of climate change but pertains to
all complex issues and systems. Regulators and most financial institutions were blind to the flaws in
the sub-prime mortgage market. Compartmentalisation of accountability meant that few could see
what was actually happening.

The Sub-Prime Crisis

/ Historic Mortgage \

Issuing banks/ experience based on \Credit Ratings Agencies

Creditworthy
Owner-Occupiers\

Property Agent:
Lenders

Loan files
Fraudulent applications

borrowers

k

Fig. 6 Illustration from a 2010 presentation to the CISI (Chartered Institute for Securities and Investment) on parallels
between the sub-prime mortgage market and carbon trading.

48 https://www.bitchute.com/video/D5F5exoJrGDE/

49 https://iudithcurrv.com/

Structural incentives obscured the toxic nature of mortgage backed securities and their derivatives,
thus fomenting the sub-prime crisis.

Until the 1970s, investors delegated due diligence to credit rating agencies for which they paid a
fee. When rating agencies started charging bond issuers for ratings, their financial interests
converged. Investigations following the crisis revealed evidence of collusion between issuing banks
and rating agencies, optimising risk profiles of securities to achieve AAA ratings. Credit raters had
no access to the underlying mortgage data which contained fraudulent applications and loans to
house buyers with insufficient earnings. Consequently, they applied ratings on the basis of historical
mortgage data from an era when loans were only granted to credit worthy owner-occupiers (see Fig.
6 ).

Financial incentives ensured the true nature of the debt wasn’t revealed. Buyers and property agents
gained in a rising property market and lenders removed bad loans from their balance sheets.
Investors bought AAA securities at exceptional yields. Issuing banks earned fees and traded their
own book, sometimes at their clients’ expense. Meanwhile, rating agencies enjoyed a fourfold
increase in revenues from 2000 to 2007.

Had investors conducted their own due diligence rather than rely on the credit rating agencies, the
sub-prime crisis could have been avoided.

Compartmentalisation also pertains to climate science and the institutional framework within which
the doubtful threat of man-made climate change has been assessed and addressed.

Lack of agreement within the climate science community on what drives global temperature is
evident but the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers creates the illusion of consensus.

Thus, in the same way that investors trusted the credit ratings agencies, financial institutions are
accepting the biased and flawed “judgement” of the IPCC. From a risk management perspective,
this has potentially catastrophic consequences.

In the case of the sub-prime market, collapse occurred once the value of mortgage backed securities
and their derivatives was revealed to be much less than the credit rating agencies and issuing banks
would have us believe.

Should temperatures plummet significantly, as they have in the past (See Section 10), the low
carbon economy will be exposed as seriously deficient and vulnerable, ie. reality will reassert itself.

Armed with the imprimatur and “authority” of the UN, the IPCC set out to prove and promote the
AGW theory. Other academic institutions were incentivised through funding and elevated status to
support this effort. As momentum built, other institutions and businesses boarded the global
warming gravy train which has now become almost unstoppable.

“Authority” does not accept challenge nor change direction easily and it is futile to expect a realistic
revision of climate change dogma from institutional hierarchy; self-preservation prevails and reality
will render many roles, institutions and businesses redundant, ie. undermine the rationale for their
existence. Consequently, we cannot expect existing institutional structures to come to terms with
reality of their own volition. We have to step out of institutional frameworks in order to explore the
enormously complex issue of climate change from multiple perspectives. If we don’t, we will
continue towards potential disaster.

Authority tends to adopt a single perspective on issues, particularly when pushing for action.

In the story of The Six Blind Men and the Elephant 50 , each of the blind men grasps a different part
of the elephant’s anatomy and tells his peers what an elephant is, based on limited information.
None of them can agree because they aren’t cooperating to describe the elephant but competing. In
climate change, authority is determined to hang on to CO 2 emissions as the primary cause of global
warming and is ignoring and dismissing all those climate scientists pointing to other influences of
greater significance in a highly complex system which we don’t yet fully understand.

13. Co-creative learning

This paper is the product of self-organising, collaborative research and analysis involving many
disparate individuals and groups from around the world, drawing on information and ideas from a
wide variety of sources, both contemporary and historic. This self-organising process is free from
the strictures and limitations of hierarchical, institutional frameworks. The principles and process
that underlie this effort have been documented and made available as a free, open source project 51
which anyone can adopt or adapt for their own use.

Principles for critical thinking and analysis are paramount in arriving at a shared understanding of
reality when it comes to climate change or any other complex problem pertaining to the political
economy. CoCreative Learning and this paper rely on Bertrand Russell’s Liberal Decalogue to
avoid the traps which plague hierarchical, institutional structures; Russell lists 10 essential
principles 52 including these two:

5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.

6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will
suppress you.

Institutional hierarchy often blinds us to reality. Collaborative, co-creative learning is essential to
meet not just the challenge of climate change but to address the many complex problems manifest
in today’s political economy.

The complexity of the global economy and financial services requires a different approach to how
we assess and mitigate macro or systemic risks, particularly those that would arise from unexpected
climate change, ie. dramatic cooling.

50 The Six Blind Men and the Elephant http://www.constitution.org/col/blind men.htm

51 https://cocreativelearning.org/cocreative-learning/cocreative-learning-howto/

52 A Liberal Decalogue: Bertrand Russell’s Ten Commandments of Critical Thinking and Democratic Decency
https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/

About the author and this paper:

Clive Menzies is the coodinator of the MacroRisk Connect programme 53 which draws on the
principles and process of CoCreative Learning, to assess and evaluate macro risks in the evolving
political economy.

This paper is based on Clive’s prior research 54 into the economics, politics and science of climate
change and the work of Critical Thinking at the Free University 55 since 2012.

CoCreative Learning 56 is the free open source learning methodology developed within and used by
Critical Thinking.

Date of publication: 31 st May 2019

53 The MacroRisk Connect Programme https://macroriskconnect.com/program/

54 Archive for the Climate Change Category https://www.outersite.org/categorv/climate-change/

55 Critical Thinking http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/

56 CoCreative Learning https://cocreativelearning.org/